Consultation on eco-labelling for fishery products

European Commission - DG Fisheries2 Communication COM(2005) June 2005 Launched a debate on eco-labelling Launched a debate on eco-labelling Considered 3 options: Considered 3 options:  1: No action, no public intervention  2: Single Community scheme  3: Minimum requirements for voluntary schemes Broad consultation from 2005 to 2007: Broad consultation from 2005 to 2007:  EU Institutions  Stakeholders Conference, ACFA  Expert Group

European Commission - DG Fisheries3 Stakeholder Conference 25 November 2005 Representatives all stages marketing chain Representatives all stages marketing chain In favour option 3 In favour option 3 Fishermen to be involved, financial support Fishermen to be involved, financial support Focus on sustainability, no other requirements Focus on sustainability, no other requirements Reluctant to consider aquaculture Reluctant to consider aquaculture Risk misinterpretation by consumers Risk misinterpretation by consumers Supportive advertising campaigns Supportive advertising campaigns Alternative formulation to "eco," e.g. "responsible" Alternative formulation to "eco," e.g. "responsible" Complement FAO guidelines on eco-labelling Complement FAO guidelines on eco-labelling

European Commission - DG Fisheries4 Economic and Social Committee 14 February 2006 In favour option 3 In favour option 3 Cost to be fairly distributed across the value chain Cost to be fairly distributed across the value chain Label for processed and non-processed products Label for processed and non-processed products Consistency with international guidelines (TBT) Consistency with international guidelines (TBT) Strict accreditation criteria and certification Strict accreditation criteria and certification Public register of labels meeting requirements Public register of labels meeting requirements Financing information campaigns Financing information campaigns

European Commission - DG Fisheries5 Advisory Committee (ACFA) 5 April 2006 In favour option 3 for marine captures only In favour option 3 for marine captures only "Sustainable fishing" instead of "eco-labelling" "Sustainable fishing" instead of "eco-labelling" Problems consumer confusion and implementation costs Problems consumer confusion and implementation costs Regular information campaigns Regular information campaigns Costs to be distributed fairly across the value chain Costs to be distributed fairly across the value chain EFF to fund implementation costs EFF to fund implementation costs Clear mechanisms for certification and accreditation Clear mechanisms for certification and accreditation Public register of certified labels Public register of certified labels Not conservation tool (responsibility CFP) Not conservation tool (responsibility CFP) Added value to EU and international conservation rules Added value to EU and international conservation rules Tool against IUU fishing Tool against IUU fishing May improve image of fishing companies May improve image of fishing companies

European Commission - DG Fisheries6 EP Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety 26 April 2006 Complement to conservation legislation, against IUU Complement to conservation legislation, against IUU Uniform certification procedure, independent monitoring Uniform certification procedure, independent monitoring Option 3 does not fully address the issue Option 3 does not fully address the issue Uniform label, easy to understand by consumers Uniform label, easy to understand by consumers Centralised management at EU level Centralised management at EU level Incentives to encourage parties to participate Incentives to encourage parties to participate

European Commission - DG Fisheries7 EP Resolution 7 September 2006 Possible confusion eco-label / quality label Possible confusion eco-label / quality label Contributes to sustainability, tool against IUU Contributes to sustainability, tool against IUU Sustainability criteria: general & specific fisheries Sustainability criteria: general & specific fisheries Option 2 (single scheme) Option 2 (single scheme)  Administrative burdensome, higher costs  But legal certainty, consumer reliability  Prevent overlapping and confusion  Clear association with sustainability  Encourage operators, convince consumers  In favour uniform system, easy to understand

European Commission - DG Fisheries8 EP Resolution 7 September 2006 Option 3 does not fully address the issue Option 3 does not fully address the issue Independent monitoring for consumer reliability Independent monitoring for consumer reliability Independent accreditation & certification bodies Independent accreditation & certification bodies Public system more guarantees than private one Public system more guarantees than private one Not barrier to trade, coherent with internat. guidelines Not barrier to trade, coherent with internat. guidelines Ensure accurate information, traceability value chain Ensure accurate information, traceability value chain Label easy to understand, advertising campaigns Label easy to understand, advertising campaigns

European Commission - DG Fisheries9 Expert Group 16 February 2007 Catch, POs, processing, retail, science, eco-labels Catch, POs, processing, retail, science, eco-labels Scheme for process & product certification Scheme for process & product certification 1. Vessel level:  Against standards of good fishing practice  Communication business to business  Logo not used at this stage 2. Fishery level:  Involve whole fleet or group of vessels  Communication business to business and consumer  Products can bear a certification logo Standards and criteria tailored to specific fisheries Standards and criteria tailored to specific fisheries

European Commission - DG Fisheries10 Agriculture & Fisheries Council 16 April 2007 In favour option 3 In favour option 3 Avoid contradictory labels confusing consumers Avoid contradictory labels confusing consumers International acceptance non-labelled products International acceptance non-labelled products New tool against IUU, added value CFP and income New tool against IUU, added value CFP and income Based on FAO guidance to avoid discrimination Based on FAO guidance to avoid discrimination Ensure traceability Ensure traceability Not in conflict with existing schemes Not in conflict with existing schemes EU register of basic specifications EU register of basic specifications Cost bearable for producers Cost bearable for producers Easy to understand by consumers Easy to understand by consumers

European Commission - DG Fisheries11 Main elements of the consultation 1. “Sustainable" or "responsible" instead of "eco" 2. Aquaculture to be considered separately 3. Based on scientifically sound criteria 4. Clear mechanisms for accreditation and certification 5. Public register of certified labels 6. Cannot replace management resources under CFP 7. Not misleading schemes, information campaigns 8. Other requirements outside the scope 9. Improvement image of the sector 10. Ensure traceability

European Commission - DG Fisheries12 Main elements of the consultation 11. Not barrier to international trade 12. Tool against IUU 13. EFF to fund implementation costs 14. Costs to be fairly distributed across the value chain 15. Vessel and fishery certification 16. Independent accreditation & certification 17. Option 3 is the favourite 18. Clear criteria for sustainability